Was Jesus «God» or «the son of God»?
For the first nine years of the church there were no gentiles in their fellowship. It was not until Peter’s visit to Cornelius in about 39CE that gentiles were even permitted to fellowship with the followers of Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph [a.k.a. Jesus the Christ]. It was not until the Jerusalem Council in 50CE that it was decided that gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism prior to fellowshipping with the church.
Actually, there was no church until about 135CE. The followers of Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph were called Nazarenes. By the time of the destruction to the Temple in 70CE the Nazarenes were the largest sect in Judaism numbering over eighty thousand people [some records list the number as eight hundred thousand]. It is ironic, therefore, that by the fourth century of the common era, the Jewish followers of Rabbi Joshua would all be labeled as heretics and the original faith would be hijacked by an exclusively gentile church.
Look at what Karen Armstrong wrote concerning the early followers of Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph:«..Like the divine Wisdom, the «Word» symbolized God’s original plan for creation. When Paul and John spoke about Jesus as though he had some kind of preexistent life, they were not suggesting that he was a second divine «person» in the later Trinitarian sense. They were indicating that Jesus had transcended temporal and individual modes of existence. Because the «power» and «wisdom» that he represented were activities that derived from God, he had in some way expressed «what was there from the beginning.»
These ideas were comprehensible in a strictly Jewish context, though later Christians with a Greek background would interpret them differently. In the Acts of the Apostles, written as late as 100 CE, we can see that the first Christians still had an entirely Jewish conception of God». [from A History of God, by Karen Armstrong, page 89]
Aime Palliere quotes M. Loyson as saying:« The chief reason why the Jews do not accept Christianity is that the latter departed from its origins in creating a God of secondary importance, as Justin Martyr said. And little by little after having made Jesus equal to the Heavenly Father, have we not practically substituted him for the Heavenly Father?» [from The Unknown Sanctuary, by Aime Palliere]
The phrase «only begotten son» in John 3:16 comes from an intentional mistranslation by Jerome when he translated the Greek into Latin. The Greek word monogenes is correctly translated «a unique son.»
Early in the second century, church orthodoxy began to develop; and through the second and third centuries the documents which would make up the New Testament were revised in order to establish the orthodox view. Bart Ehrman documents many of these revisions in his book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. It was the Christological debates of the second and third centuries that finally led to the formation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Encyclopedia Britannica [11th Edition] says:« The Trinitarians and the Unitarians continued to confront each other, the latter at the beginning of the third century still forming the large majority».
Look at these revealing statements from Paul:« But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him». [1 Cor. 8:6]
«For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ». [1 Timothy 2:5]
Notice that Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph [Jesus] is called «Lord» and «mediator» but he is never called «God». In fact in 1 Timothy Paul says that Rabbi Joshua is a «man.»
Now let’s look at the words of Rabbi Joshua himself said in the gospel of John:« Joshua [Jesus] said to her, Do not touch me; for I have not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brothers, and say to them, I am ascending to my Father, and your Father; to my God, and your God». [John 20:17]
From this passage we see that Rabbi Joshua is referring to God as his father in the same way that he was the father of his disciples (or brothers?). He also says that the Father is his God.
John Shelby Spong wrote:« The simplistic suggestion that Jesus is God is nowhere made in the biblical story. Nowhere!» [from This Hebrew Lord, by John Shelby Spong]
Alterations to the text of the New Testament are quite revealing. Ehrman documents over two hundred such deliberate alterations. One example is a pattern that appears a number of times, where the phrase «his father and mother» is altered to read «Joseph and his mother.» Likewise the phrase «his parents» is also changed to «Joseph and his mother.» Another pattern that appears is where the text «chosen of God» has been altered to read «son of God» in a number of places. In Luke 9:35 the phrase «the one who has been chosen» is dropped from the text altogether.
Look at this curious admission: In Acts 2:30 it says that Messiah came from the fruit of David’s loins according to the flesh — that he was a flesh and blood descendent of David through Joseph (according to Peter’s testimony).
Obviously Peter did not believe in a «virgin birth.»
«Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Messiah to sit on his throne;» [Act 3:20]
To conclude, I have included some paragraphs from the summary of chapter 2 of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by Bart Ehrman, p 97-98:« Our investigation of these changes has followed the rubrics provided by the proto-orthodox polemicists themselves. Some scribal changes emphasize that Jesus was born of a virgin; others circumvent the adoptionist claim that he was not. One regular target for such changes were passages that originally spoke of Joseph as Jesus’ father or parent (e.g., Luke 2:33, 43, 48). Other changes served to emphasize Mary’s virginity (e.g., Matt 1:16). In several instances, the idea of Jesus’ miraculous birth was imported into passages that originally said nothing about it (John 1:13; 1John 5:16).
Orthodox scribes not infrequently altered texts that might be taken to suggest that Jesus became the Son of God only at his baptism (Luke 3:22; Acts 10:37, 38; John 1:34), or at his resurrection (Rom 1:4), or at some unspecified moment (e.g., Luke 9:35; 1John 5:18). Correspondingly they changed other passages so as to highlight their view that Jesus was already the Son of God before his baptism (Mark 1:1) or even before his coming into the world (Matt 1:18).
By far the most common anti-adoptionist corruptions simply designate Christ as «God.» Sometimes these variants are widely attested (1Tim 3:16; John 1:18); more frequently they occur in a restricted portion of the tradition (e.g., Mark 1:3; 1John 3:23; John 10:33; 19:40), or exclusively among the early versions (e.g., Luke 1:17, 76; 2:26). On occasion, such changes occur in manuscripts that can actually be dated to the period of concern (e.g. 2Pet 1:2; Jude 5). Even when the supporting witnesses are uniformly late, however, they appear to represent vestiges of an earlier age (e.g., Mark 3:11; Luke 7:9; 8:28). Moreover, Christ’s divinity is sometimes affirmed through an exchange of predicates, in which his characteristics and activities are attributed to God (e.g., references to God’s blood or passion, cf. Acts 20:28; 1Pet 5:1), conversely, God’s are attributed to him (e.g., Christ as «judge of the earth,» cf. 1Cor 10:5, 9).
Finally, the orthodox emphasis on Jesus’ divinity occasionally led to a de-emphasis on his humanity. So far as we can judge, scribes never eliminated the notion that Jesus was fully human. This would have embroiled them in a different set of problems, for then the text could be taken to support docetic Christologies that the proto-orthodox opposed on another front. But scribes did modify texts that could implicate Christ in human weaknesses and frailties that were not appropriate to one understood to be divine, occasionally changing passages that suggest that Christ was not all-knowing (Matt 24:36) or spiritually perfect (Luke 2:40), and passages that suggest that he was purely mortal (John 19:5) or susceptible to human temptations and sin (Heb 2:18; 10:29)».
Here are just a few examples of the changes that were made to the text:
| Corrupt Text | Original Text |
| Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. | Luke 2:33 And his father and mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. |
| Luke 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not. | Luke 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew not. |
| Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, You are my beloved Son; in you I am well pleased. | Luke 3:22 And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, You are my son. Today I have begotten you. |
| John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God. | John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the chosen of God. |
| Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. | Luke 9:35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my son, the one who is chosen: hear him. |
| Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; | Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ; |
| 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. | 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: who was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. |
https://web.archive.org/web/20071221204011/http://www.bnai-el-chai.com/jesus.htm